I think the writers misunderstood her arrest
- Cutie Pie T.T.V.
- Apr 23
- 5 min read
I went back and looked at the Susan B. Anthony situation again.
Powerpuff Girls episode feels manipulative in that one scene.
Here’s why.
The episode frames it like this: “She broke the law, and the government wanted to go easy on her because she was a woman.”
Then it treats that like it’s a bad thing even though in this context she was arrested solely because she had voted, and the episode wrongfully says she demanded to be jailed to be treated equally because if men broke the law, they'd go to jail, when in reality, she'd be demanding to be treated unfairly because the white men, at least, would never go to jail for voting.
thus, That narrative they stated is not what actually happened.
In real life:
Susan B. Anthony voted in 1872 and was arrested.
She went to trial and was found guilty.
The judge didn’t even let the jury decide—he forced a guilty verdict. (Wikipedia)
She was fined $100 and refused to pay it. (National Archives)
She was not jailed for not paying said fine, and the government chose not to push it further. (Wikipedia)
What actually happened during her arrest makes more sense:
On November 14, warrants for the arrest of the women who had voted and the election inspectors who had allowed them to do so were drawn up and shown to the press. William C. Storrs, one of the commissioners for the U.S. Circuit Court for the Rochester area, sent word to Anthony asking her to meet him in his office. Anthony replied that she "had no social acquaintance with him and didn't wish to call on him." [21]
On November 18, a deputy U.S. Marshal came to her house and said that Commissioner Storrs wished to see her in his office. When Anthony asked "why?" the officer replied that Storrs wanted to arrest her. Anthony said that men weren't arrested that way and didn't want to have to go all the way up to his office to be arrested, especially since she seems to have refused to do so because she didn't know the man and didn't even know why she was being called to his office at first. She desired to be arrested in a normal fashion, but it wasn't anything she fought to do. They were very willing to arrest her.
They were going to arrest her anyway, basically, the only thing she refused was going to that man's office whom she didn't know.
The deputy then produced the warrant and arrested her. Told that she was required to go with him, Anthony replied that she wasn't prepared to go immediately.
The deputy said he would go on ahead, and she could follow when she was ready. Anthony said she would refuse to take herself to court, so the deputy waited while she changed her dress. Anthony then held out her wrists to be handcuffed, but the officer declined, saying he did not think that would be necessary. [18] [21]
She didn't resist, but essentially, it wasn't because she was a woman that they didn't put her in jail.
While I see where the confusion comes in on the writer's of the powerpuff girl's part, she was going to be arrested anyway.
All that happened was She refused to go meet a random male official alone in his office to simply be arrested and insisted on being arrested in a way that wouldn't require her to go to some random man's office alone. Most likely, That’s not someone asking for punishment—that’s someone protecting themselves and demanding normal procedure.
Why this episode's scene is manipulative
If the show runners knew this wasn't true, and knew the true intent, then The show lies about the true story to push a message.
Now, they could have said she didn't resist and did as told and used that to push said moral, but the context is horrible for it because it's them arresting a real criminal and them using a case of a woman voting and not resisting in a case where resisting can land her in worse trouble to tell the woman to allow herself to be held accountable because this Susan did, however, Susan did nothing wrong.
It makes it sound like:
Letting her off easier for being a woman = sexism even in this context despite her only crime being voting. She wasn't even let off easier since no man (at least no white man) was arrested for voting, so she's not getting let off easier. The men still are.
Wanting equal punishment = the “right” thing even in this context where the only crime committed was voting. She committed no crime deserving of any punishment.
In reality, this was a woman:
Voting for her rights.
Being punished for voting via being given a $100 fine and being arrested, something that at least white men had never gone through
Refusing to accept that punishment because it was an insult and thus never paid the fine.
Turning that into “she wanted to go to jail” twists the meaning completely and makes no sense for the context.
It also seems to be a misunderstanding of her refusing to meet a stranger alone in his office to be arrested, which is suspicious, risky and seems to be an unfamiliar protocol to her, making it look even more risky and strange, and as a result could spark fears of harm and sexual assault, when she could just be arrested on the spot in public where others could see her and someone could step in if something awful happened.
The logic problem
The episode’s misunderstanding of the situation doesn’t even make sense when you think about it.
Why would someone:
Fight for the right to vote.
Then fight to be jailed for doing it.
That goes against basic common sense. People protesting unfair laws usually don’t want to go to jail for it.
The other fourteen women who had voted and were subsequently arrested were: Charlotte ("Lottie") B. Anthony, Mary S. Anthony, Ellen S. Baker, Nancy M. Chapman, Hannah M. Chatfield, Jane M. Cogswell, Rhoda DeGarmo, Mary S. Hebard, Susan M. Hough, Margaret Garrigues Leyden, Guelma Anthony McLean, Hannah Anthony Mosher, Mary E. Pulver, and Sarah Cole Truesdale.
The election inspectors who had allowed them to vote were arrested also. Their names were Beverly Waugh Jones, Edwin T. Marsh and William B. Hall. [22]
Several of the women were involved in various types of reform activity. DeGarmo had been the recording secretary for the Rochester Women's Rights Convention of 1848,
the second such convention in the country, held two weeks after the Seneca Falls Convention. [23]
As her attorney, Anthony chose Henry R. Selden, a respected local lawyer who had previously served as lieutenant governor of New York and as a judge on the New York Court of Appeals. The New York Commercial Advertiser said that Anthony's trial had taken on new importance now that Selden had agreed to take her case, and it suggested that men might need to reconsider their opinion on women's suffrage. Anthony also frequently consulted the lawyer for the election inspectors, John Van Voorhis, who had previously served as Rochester City Attorney. [24]
The women who were arrested were held to $500 bail. Everyone posted bail except Anthony, who refused. [25] Storrs issued a commitment authorizing the U.S. marshal to place her in the Albany County jail, but she was never actually held there. [26]
If they wanted to teach “you shouldn’t get special treatment,” they could’ve done that without using a real historical figure and changing the facts.
Instead, they:
Took a real case
either lied or misunderstood (misunderstood seems to be the real issue)
makes false claims
Comments